The CEO of Starbucks (SBUX) wants business leaders to jar Washington out of its partisan logjam by threatening not to give money to any political campaigns. For most of them, it won't be a big change.
By Mary Altaffer, AP file
CEO Howard Schultz in December 2010 at a Starbucks shop in New York City's Soho section.
By Mary Altaffer, AP file
When Howard Schultz announced last month that he would stop political contributions until lawmakers come up with a deficit-reduction plan, he said 100 other business leaders had also agreed to keep their checkbooks shut. But 38 of those executives appear not to have made any political contributions at all since at least 2008. Another 20 gave less than $5,000.
watch the video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp … 6#44165656
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie … 50326932/1
he sounds very sensible..his interview was enlightening
I think if more politicians had their financial backing threatened ,they may start working for the good of the people...or the corporations?
Unfortunately the CEO of Starbucks and his friends who aren't really donating all that much money don't have much sway in this. The CEO's of the big oil conglomerates, the CEO's of the gun manufacturers, or pharmaceutical companies are the first people that will donate, and they contribute to a lot of the financial backing of the politicians. Unfortunately just a handful of mediocre CEO's boycotting charities for politicians does not threaten politicians, if anything it creates a bigger need for them to be corrupt. The CEO's from the oil, firearm and pharmaceutical corporations are the cause of many politicians being corrupt and with politicians relying on these guys for more money creates a bigger opportunity to have more sway of politician's votes. If only the CEO of Phizer or Johnson and Johnson would do such a thing than I'd feel like it's a step in the right direction. But all in all not a bad move for the CEO of Starbucks, great publicity for him.
by ahorseback17 months ago
Maybe Americans , by nature , are always willing to debate in the political spectrum ! Maybe that is never going to change , maybe we don't want ANTHING TO CHANGE . Is it the...
by Justin Earick3 years ago
While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting? What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.